Singapore Expats

My credit card was stolen recently - I cancelled the card a few hours later (my mobile phone, house keys etc were also stolen so it took a while to get organised) - but in the meantime the thieves had used the card successfully.

I called the bank once I realised a fraudulent transaction had taken place - they sent me a claim form - I completed it and returned it.

This week I received a letter from the bank - the bottom line is that I am liable for all transactions on the card up until the time that I cancel it - even if the signature is grossly a fake [u]unless[/u] the bank recovers the card.

Does anyone knowof any banks who do not apply such a harsh ruling ?

Any advice gratefully received.

I was surprised to read in the local papers that is the case over here. I had my card stolen in the UK, and they clocked up 14,000 pounds worth of transactions. I filled in all the forms and didn't have to pay a penny. In fact the banks were quite apologetic as they should have spotted the change in spending habits.

I suppose its a double edge sword. The ruling here makes you very careful with your credit card, and it stops potential fraudulent use of the card by the card holder who can later claim it was stolen.

Its always a good idea to have a photocopy of every card in your wallet, should it get lost you can instantly access all the details.

This is why I continue to use my US credit card. No annual fee, guaranteed loss protection, and miles into my Continental account, also usable on partner airlines.

dbenne22 wrote:This week I received a letter from the bank - the bottom line is that I am liable for all transactions on the card up until the time that I cancel it - even if the signature is grossly a fake unless the bank recovers the card.

that's a bit rubbish. i suggest you check the banks credit card contract if there is such wording. the contract will probably at the back of a credit card form or if it is available online.

btw, you not a law student on your last leg of a round the world holiday, are you?

Hey that's a good one

Here's the wording:

"You shall not be liable for any transactions carried out after we have been notified of the loss/theft/disclosure. However we shall debit the relevant Card Account for all transactions carried out before we are notified of the loss/theft/disclosure, even if such transactions were carried out without your authorisation."

So the implication is that I am liable for transactions carried out before I notify them (but of course they don't explicitly say that)...

dbenne22 wrote:Hey that's a good one

Here's the wording:

"You shall not be liable for any transactions carried out after we have been notified of the loss/theft/disclosure. However we shall debit the relevant Card Account for all transactions carried out before we are notified of the loss/theft/disclosure, even if such transactions were carried out without your authorisation."

So the implication is that I am liable for transactions carried out before I notify them (but of course they don't explicitly say that)...

Wrong...... that's very explicit.

However, it is also wrong that credit card company doesn't accept responsibility for unauthorised transactions and they really need to come down hard on whoever "approved" a forged signature.

I would tell them to p!ss off and go after the shop/company that wrongly approved the card.

Interesting, while I was in the states, at a cashier I noticed I had my wife's credit card, I told the cashier it was the wrong card, she did a check and told me so long as its not recorded as stolen they are not bothered who signs it. So I signed the receipt and the purchase went through. Could be same here?

Might explain why the banks are quite lax about card security, no pins numbers etc. as they don't have to foot the bill for fraudulent activity.

Welcome to Singapore my friend - a place where the individual has NO rights at all. There was an article in the local press (probably Today, but can't be sure) about 2 weeks ago on what the story is on this one and generally you're liable for the costs. I'm not quite sure what the case is where they skim your card details... the card technically is not lost (as it is still in your posession, but the use is unauthorised!)

I recently had to report a credit card lost. I logged onto the internet to get the number and the only number available was a toll-free number that you could only use from WITHIN Singapore. Completely useless given I was in Hanoi at the time!

I think I will:

- try and reduce my credit limit to say $1,000
- use NETS as much as possible and the Sing card for emergencies
- use my Australian card when overseas as they have (cough) slightly more humane rules over there

Any other suggestions ?

If you've got Visa/MC type NETS card, it will work just about all over the world... at least in any machine that has Cirrus or whatever else is marked on the back of your NETS card.

We've had good luck with HSBC all over the world with credit card fraud. In each situation they assumed all the negligent charges (from someone cashing a check in the UK months after we'd moved to charging a computer on our credit card in Australia without us knowing... in both cases we were contacted by the bank.)

Maybe check them out?

cbavasi wrote:We've had good luck with HSBC all over the world with credit card fraud. In each situation they assumed all the negligent charges (from someone cashing a check in the UK months after we'd moved to charging a computer on our credit card in Australia without us knowing... in both cases we were contacted by the bank.)

Maybe check them out?

As I said - NOT IN SINGAPORE. Extract from HSBC T&C's:

"Important: You are liable for all card transactions (whether or not authorised by you) entered into before we receive notice of loss, theft or disclosure. This includes fraudulent transactions on the card account resulting from your disclosure of your card particulars, whether
deliberately or inadvertently, on the Internet or through any other media."

I have found the articles in question. Because of the terms of using the site I cannot publish the url's here - but pm me and I'll send them to you. Makes for interesting reading... It appeared on 30 July in the national newspaper.








Edited:Moderator: newspaper cannot be named: sticky entitled 'Important All Users Please Note' in general discussions section.

dbenne22 wrote:Hey that's a good one

Here's the wording:

"You shall not be liable for any transactions carried out after we have been notified of the loss/theft/disclosure. However we shall debit the relevant Card Account for all transactions carried out before we are notified of the loss/theft/disclosure, even if such transactions were carried out without your authorisation."

So the implication is that I am liable for transactions carried out before I notify them (but of course they don't explicitly say that)...

holy smoke! this is bad! so what the bank is saying is anyone can use your credit card since you will be paying for it! to be honest, this is the first i heard of (and i have worked for visa international years ago). my UK credit card clause is i am only liable for the first £50 (about S$120). imagine if a scum clubbed me and i am in a coma, the scum used my credit card for round the world tour, i only cough up £50. i think amex was the same. i never read the T&C as i know i am not liable for fraud transaction.

i suggest you square it with the bank and maybe think about changing bank and credit card!

carteki wrote:I have found the articles in question. Because of the terms of using the site I cannot publish the url's here - but pm me and I'll send them to you. Makes for interesting reading... It appeared on 30 July in the national newspaper.

That was the article I saw and was very surprised to read that we are liable for fraudulent losses, like you say what happens if someone skims off the details, you wont know about it for at least a month or two between statements, and if you have a high credit limit 70 or 80k can be easily be taken out over the weeks.

Almost worth handing back the local cards.


Quote edited: moderator